Wednesday, June 06, 2007

N&O Question for Hodge

From the N&O editors' blog, on Ron Hodge's ludicrous assertion that he couldn't come up with any major DPD errors in the last five years:

Our previous reports can shed light on these [lacrosse case] issues. We've reported about problems with the police department's work, including the flawed photo identification procedure, the conflicting notes filed by the two police detectives who worked the case together, and why police allowed District Attorney Mike Nifong to take control of the case.

The N&O has written hundreds of stories on the case, including our series, Rush to Judgment. Let us know if you think the police department made any mistakes.

Indeed, the "Rush to Judgment" series alone should be enough to disqualify Hodge's candidacy.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

The N&O and other members of the Press should be leading the fight for reform and corrective justice in Durham.

Despite the early serious errors made by the N&O, this paper and these journalists must be enlisted in the process of revealing Nifong's co-conspirators within the Durham Police Department.

Gary said...

The fact that Patrick Baker is involved in hiring is bad news -- people tend to hire people like themselves -- people they feel will fit in, play along. Remove Baker from the loop and Hodge goes too. Birds of a feather.

Hodge starts out hostile to the press, thinks these things should be taken care of behind closed doors. He misses that consideration that the police are the knife of democracy -- necessary to defend it, but often it's greatest danger too and so the police need to be more open and transparent than they otherwise "should" be.

His attitude alone should rule him out IMHO.

Anonymous said...

Excellent work N&O editors'>keep it up and don't stop, someone has to keep stirring the pot. It's a relief to know that when KC stops you will continue to be on the case.

Anonymous said...

TO 8:13PM--

Yes, better late than never.

Just don't expect very much from their editorial pages except a platform for the spastic effulgences of the Duke Gang of 88.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

I guess I have only one comment about Hodge saying only minor errors occurred in the lacrosse case. IF that were the case then why did the Durham city council ask to have the dang police case investigated by outsiders. I do not think that Durham would spend lots of money investigating minor errors in the case. I can tell that Hodge is still not smart enough to GET IT. Imagine saying what he did in front of everyone in a job interview. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Anonymous said...

9:37

You have to understand the kind of people who run Durham. Hodge really believes that just saying what he did will fly. The DPD has a corrupt history. Ask anyone who has lived there a while.
The Durham City Council knows the way they operate. The scratch one another's back. This investigation is being done because this lacrosse case has been publicized worldwide and to even appear on a level of competency, they have to go through this game.
Unless they get rid of the idiot Catotti and her people there will be nothing of any substance put forth. Only a way to try to cover the corruption.
Many longtime city council members are just as corrupt. They vote on things to bring big taxpayer money to friends and relatives. No one seems to care about how corrupt things are.
The people who run the place really think they can beat this rap and come out without paying for what they allowed to take place.

Anonymous said...

Debrah's vocabulary is simply amazing. Have to wonder if she converses in language the same as she types.

rrhamilton said...

KC, I just thought you might like to know: The Duke case has been raised in two articles about man who was convicted of, essentially, statutory rape.

Here, the man's attorney "compared the case to the recent rape case involving Duke University lacrosse players, saying prosecutors in both cases overreached." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19074510/

Then in the MSNBC "analysis", the attorney there said, "Prosecutors have discretion, and they have to use it fairly and wisely. So why do I write about this case now, two years into his sentence? For two reasons: for one, the Duke case has heightened my awareness that there can be injustice in the system, and as a prosecutor, I have an equal obligation to seek convictions as I do to make sure the convictions are fair and just and not wrongful."

Btw, I hate this new comment format.

Anonymous said...

Just saw this in Judge Smith's Memorandum (reguarding matters discussed at a pre-trial hearing):

Pursuant to request of the parties, undertook for in camera review voluminous documents containing confidential records relating to the alleged victim for determination by the Court as to whether same should be disclosed to the defendants;


Given what is already out, it seems a safe bet that these voluminous documents would have quite a lot to say. As I've said, this was a naked frame from the outset. A good portion of these voluminous documents were undoubtedly on-file at the Durham County Courthouse before 13 March 2006.

Note that this doesn't comport w/ the image that was being put out in the press about our Precious "African Queen."

William Jockusch said...

Errors is not exactly the right word for it . . . what they did was try to frame three innocent people. The word "error" would be more appropriate if the police, for example, got DNA results suspects A and B, and A matched and B didn't, but through some uninentional screwup, the police thought it was the other way around and ended up charging B.

Michael said...

re: 11:00

The new comment format means that your link didn't get truncated.

scott said...

I'm with rrhamilton. I liked the old format where you could click on a link and get back to the post and reference it or cut and paste from it as needed while making your comment .

I have no idea what a truncated link is and why not having one should make me feel good.

Anonymous said...

No mistakes???! Let's go through this again and make it simple. Did the DPD believe that a rape occurred? If not, then why were three Duke students indicted? If so, then why did the DPD not pursue a match to the DNA that was actually found in and on the accuser? No mistakes? This was either a major mistake or a criminal conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

I like the old format too.